Chapter VIII

Conclusion

The present study focuses on normative dimensions, community life and

cultural orientation of scientists in two research organisations - National Physical

Laboratory, Delhi and Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. The nature of scientific

research has undergone drastic changes from an individual endeavour to organized

collective activity. Scientific researches are mainly carried out in government

laboratories, universities and industrial-in-house research organizations. Different work

places have different types of character and organizational goals which affect the

internal norms of science and community life and cultural orientation of scientists.

National physical laboratory is under the direct control of the Government of

India and has to follow policy guidelines issued from its headquarter i.e. Council of

Scientific and Industrial Research, a body headed by Prime Minister of India. The

Indian Institute of Science being a deemed university provides academician full

autonomy regarding the selection of their research themes, publication of their research

findings and to a greater extent in financial expenditure. A stratified sample of eighty

scientists, forty from each organization, was chosen for the present study. Ten case

studies, five from each organization have been incorporated in order to substantiate and

enrich the qualitative and quantitative data collected with the help of questionnaires and

in-depth informal interviews. The case studies provide insight into the socio-cultural

dynamics of various facets of life of scientists working in these two organizations.

The present study comes within the framework of sociology of science, which is

an emerging field in the discipline of sociology. For giving a concise look and

integrating many sociological concepts and theories specially in the field of sociology

of science, a systematic approach has been followed. The chapter first provides

theoretical framework to the study. The chapter third has dealt with socio-historical

context of development of science in the West, China and India. This chapter traces the

linkages between science, culture and nation. While chapter second deals with

methodology adopted for the study. Chapters fourth, fifth and sixth - based on field

data - explored into community life, normative dimensions and cultural orientation of

scientists respectively. The chapter seventh deals \:vith ten case studies. In the following

sections broad issues discussed and analysed in the thesis have been recapitulated in the

existing functionalist-constructionist framework of sociology of science.

256

Scientific community ts a group of people who are involved in scientific

research and development and who are supposed to follow certain norms and rules of

social institution of science. In the first section, the general features of scientific

community, their interaction pattern and emerging trends in their functioning are given.

In the second section operation of normative dimensions of science and in the third

section cultural orientation of scientists is given.

Characteristic Features of Scientific Community

The study reveals that scientific community is heavily dominated by male

members. This shows the general trend of female representation in higher education.

Due to small representation of females in the science, their work is easily get

marginalized and men are able to define and control the nature of women's scientific

labour and career. A female scientist has been successful, when she -has been supported

by some male members (they may be either her family members or her colleagues) for

both successful performance of her role and recognition of that role. Thus, it seems that

Indian scientific community works as a patriarchal institution.

There is an attitudinal differences between scientists who have done their Ph.D

from abroad and those who have done from local universities. Those trained abroad

emphasized more on academic autonomy and are less inclined to join government

administered bureaucratic laboratories. Although we did not find any instance of

discrimination based on the provenance of their education it seems that award, •

promotion and recognition system work more favourably for those trained abroad;

while scientists who have done their Ph.D from some Indian universities express regret

for not having gone abroad. Ashok Parthasarthy 1 suggestion that "a caste like system

prevailed in Indian scientific community based on overseas versus local education"

seems true to some extent in the present time too. However, it was also found that

scientists, although emphasised on frequent contact and collaboration with the world

scientific community, also accept the need to situate their works in Indian context.

Majority of Indian scientists come from teaching and agricultural class background and

most of them have been good in their studies at school and college level. However,

awareness about a research career as a scientist developed at much later stage. For

Parthasarthy, Ashok, 1969 op.cit. p.1387.

257

majority of scientists, their first priority has been medical or engineering courses. Their

basic motives have been to get permanent and secure jobs. Despite this prevailing trend

it was also observed that there are some scientists (particularly in I.I.Sc.) who have

joined the research profession after completing their bachelor degree in engineering.

The entry of engineers in academic research has larger implication on the academic

nature of scientific community and its research pattern as they try to translate scientific

concept into engineering craft. 2

Positive Perception of their Role

The role of scientist like any other role in the society is subjected to public

evaluation as well as self-evaluation. Self-evaluation of his/her role by a scientist has

larger implication on his interaction with other scientists and his motivation for

performance of his role as a scientist. It was found that 75 percent scientists feel that

Indian society is appreciative to their work from 'very much' to 'some extent'. The

high social status which scientists have in any society symbolizes public recognition of

the social importance of their function. Only 25 percent scientists feel that people are

indifferent to their works. However the remarkable thing is that scientists themselves

realized that public appreciate scientific work for its usefulness or utilitarian values

(Table 4.8). Scientific community feels that in India scientific research can be carried

out without inviting wrath of any major groups of people. Occasional protest and

criticism being witnessed in the society are mainly targeted on the way scientific

knowledge (teclmology) is used and sometimes on process and manners of scientific

research.3

Edwin Layton suggested that the incorporation of engineering trammg in the university and development of academic engineering research during the early twentieth century and the application of scientific principles to engineering practices expanded the process of transfcrming knowledge into economic goods. (See, Layton, Edwin T., "Technology as Knowledge", Technology and Culture, vol. 15, 1974, pp. 31-41).

Shiv Visvanathan argued: "that experimental method so crucial to modem science contains unique notion of violence- that is vivisection. Vivisection is the infliction of pain for experimental purpose of understanding and control, where pain and suffering are justified in the pursuit of scientific knowledge as an absolute value". See, Visvanathan, Shiv, "on the Annals of the Laboratory State" in Nandy, Ashish (ed), Science, Hegemony and violence: A Requiem for Modernity. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1999, pp. 257-288.

258

Formulation of Research Problems: Craze for current area

A basic feature of contemporary scientific life is that scientists are seen in

different roles - as an intellectual engaged in pursuit of 'truth', as a technologist

working in laboratory for developmental of a particular technology, as an academician

involved in teaching and research. However these roles are not distinct or isolated from

each other, rather many times they overlap with each other. Scientists in their action

and goal orientation are influenced by their organizational location and their interaction

with other scientists. It has been found that 37.5 percent scientists (50 percent from

NPL and 25 percent from liSe) accept that guidelines/directions from government and 0

request coming from Industries have major influence on formulation of their research

problems. However, majority of scientists52.5 percent (37.5 percent in NPL and 67.50

percent in liSe) decide their research problem on their own keeping scientific

significance as their aim. The notion of 'scientific significance' reveals the real nature

of scientific community. Our in-depth interviews reveal that scientists prefer working

in 'hot area' or in 'current area' in a discipline as this has ample opportunity for making

rapid advancement and going abroad. Scientists do not select research problemsfrom

their local context but work on current problems that most of the scientists are carrying

out side India. Indian scientists jqin this race (to be in the current area of research) in

three ways:

(a) First, they come into contact with some scientists/individuals (He/She may be

his/her guide/colleagues or a scientist from abroad) working on 'current issue' and

s!he may encourage them to pursue their research in that particular area.

(b) Second, they may be tempted to work on some "mission-oriented" research project

started by government alone or in collaboration with private agencies and foreign

governments or international agencies, as it has both opportunity for getting secure

employment and opportunity to work with renowned scientists in the front area of

science.

(c) Third, they read latest journals and other relevant literatureSas these provide good

insight into the current areas in a discipline. The selection of research problem in

this manner has larger implication on the community life of scientists. As Shiva and

259

Bandhopadhaya4 argued that since the main scientific journals which are available

in Indian institutions come from the west such scientists are forced to study that set

of problems which their counterpart are exploring in the west. This kind of research

is not undertaken as part of 'subjectively propelled interest' but are 'fascinated by

western ideology'. This craze for west could be attributed to wide perception

among the Indian scientists that publication in foreign journal is an important

criterion for promotion and recognition in the country. Some scholars have

suggested that Indian scientists, having chosen 'bookish problems' are bound to fail

as they do not get good quality of research facilities in India which their counterpart

have in the west. However, their failures have another dimension that is related to

their inability to comprehend and replicate the problem at experimental level. Edge

& Mulkay5 showed, in their study of Radio Astronomy that only published

knowledge is not sufficient for grasping functionality of any scientific concept. It

also requires personal communication with original innovator. Thus, scientists

working in front areas of science have greater possibility for success provided they

get frequent opportunity to interact with their fallow scientists who dominate,

reputed scientific organizations.

Role and Identity of Scientists

In NPL, which is a bureaucratically controlled government industrial laboratory

scientists have to carry out specific research to fulfill certain needs identified by

government or requested by the industrial houses. Scientists are totally dependent on

government support for their research work. Elaborate bureaucratic machinery directs,

regulates and formulates policy guidelines for research work, and scientists are

expected to produce results having commercial values. They are encouraged to get

patent right for their research work.

In liSe organisational structure is less bureaucratic and hierarchical. Scientists

have adequate autonomy to formulate research proposals and get grants from any

source like government or private sectors and even from foreign collaboration. They

4 Shiva, V. and Bandhopahaya, J., "The large and fragile community of scientists in India", 1980 op.cit. p.577.

5 Edge, 0 and Mulkay, M, Astronomy Transformed: The Emergence of Radio Astronomy in Britain; Wiley, New York, 1976.

260

are not totally dependent on government for research grants. This autonomy facilitates

them to formulate research problems according to their scientific significance and

potential utility. Once an individual scientist or group of scientists get research grants

sanctioned on the merit of their research proposals they have full autonomy to carry out

their research works. Administrative machinery helps them to carry out their

administrative work. In NPL, scientific community is constrained by bureaucratic

control and economic pressure. Although scientists in I.I.Sc. also have to mobilize

resources by re-orienting their research priority, yet their high credibility for good

quality research and institutional autonomy help them to maintain balance between

mobilization of resources and doing ot research in front area. SCientists in NPL feel

more discontent and frustrated with the prevailing research atmosphere in their

organization. This experience of role strains has resulted from a lack of congruence

between their role as technical workers and their identity as scientists. As technical

workers they are supposed to carry out research work which is relevant for industry and

government. But their cherished identity as scientists is recognized on the basis of their

good quality of publication, which is least possible on the basis of routine work or

project work. This kind of mismatch between individual goal of scientist and

organizational goal has resulted into fragmented community structure, which is vividly

manifested, in their interaction pattern and inter-relationship.

Interaction Pattern among Scientists

Scientists form a community m a sense that they have a special kind of

interpersonal relationship characterized by egalitarian ethos.6 Scientists may advise and

criticize but are not supposed to command each other. The study reveals that majority

of scientists in NPL feel that their relationship with their head of the division is of

hierarchical type. The annual confidential report system inhibits subordinate scientists

to make any dissenting voice against their controlling authority. Bureaucratic rules and

regulations in the name of discipline and security is a big stumbling block in the

formation of creative communal relationship among scientists.

6 Norman Storer has suggested that the egalitarian ethos of science require that scientists should treat each other as equal, both because a man's personal characteristics are assumed to be unrelated to the quality of his contribution to knowledge and because inequalities among them might interfere with free and open communication. See, Norman, Storer W., The Social System of Science, op.cit. p. 104.

261

Team-work culture- Hierarchical versus Collegial

There is general consensus among scientists on tl,le importance of 'team-work'.

As they recognized that modern science has become so complex that it requires joint

systematic efforts of many people from different disciplines. Teamwork culture is

prevailing in both the organizations - NPL & I.I.Sc. However there are some major

differences in their approaches. In NPL, which is characterized by 'hierarchical team -

work' culture individual scientists are forced to work together. Their inter-personal

relationship is marred by inter-personal rivalry, jealousy and lack of faith in each

others' abilities. In a group members have diverse interests though they are working

together on a project. Other studies7 have also shown that scientists in Indian context

are poorly fit to work in a team spirit.

In NPL, hierarchy is also reflected in the division of work as the leader of the

group (generally most senior scientist/or head of the unit) has major say in formulation

of research project, mobilization of resources, planning and administration of the

project and final submission of the report. He has not full faith in the capabilities of his

junior colleagues. As a scientist in NPL acknowledged: "where precision and accuracy

of high standard is required I myself take reading". A report published in 'nature' also

shows that in "Indian science, young people have too little say in the design of the

projects on which they work and they are not trusted to function on their own".8

Interaction among themselves also provides an opportunity to learn from each

others' experience. In this sense scientific community also functions as socializing

agent for neo-scientists. Frequent face-to-face interaction with deep personality

involvement is necessary in the socialization process in science, because, as Polayni9

suggested, some elements of scientific skills cannot be made explicit. Involvement of

scientists in different research activities provides them opportunities to learn science by

doing themselves. It was found that in I.I.Sc. all scientists in a research team were

involved at all stages of a research programme - from formulation of problem to

Pruthi, S., Nagpaul, P.S., Jain, Ashok, and Wahid, A., "Image of Indian Science: An Inside View", Indian Management, 27 (II), 1988, pp. 34-50.

"Science in India Excellence in the midst ofpoverty", Nature, vol. 308, 1984, pp. 581-600. 9 Polanyi, M., Personal Knowledge., 1964, op.cit. p53.

262

research design, perception of methods and techniques, data collection and

experimental work, result analysis and report writing and their final publication.

In NPL, team-leader divides the work among other members according to their

expertise. However1he provides opportunity to group members to learn each other's

work by reshuffling the division of work. But this is done more to ensure uninterrupted

functioning of divisional works, in the absence of a team member. Head of the

division/team provides supervisory role and also coordinates and simulate the work

done by other members. Scientists in NPL see their senior as their boss while in I.I.Sc.

they see their seniors as their mentors. Scientists in NPL perceive their relationship

with their seniors as authoritative, formal and emotionally neutral. This kind of

relationship is deterrent to development of effective scientific community: Rossum 10

suggested that the secondary socialization in science that takes place during the

working of scientists in teamwork with other scientists does have the features of

primary socialization and therefore, needs a kind of primary group relation. For 0

existence of a strong creative communal relation among scientists free discussion and

debate and exchange of ideas are very important. Community life cannot be imposed

from outside and it has to be evolved through conscious process of communication and

interaction

Formation of Research Network

Science is a collaborative work, scientists while working on a particular

problem seek opinions of other scientists who are working or having interest in that

particular area. The nature of research has undergone changes from pure disciplinary

approach to inter-disciplinary approach. In both the organisations scientists feel that

scientific research whether in applied or fundamental area requires collaboration of

number of specialists from different disciplines. In this sense many hybrid communities

of scientists have come into existence. There is no homogeneous community of

scientists. In Indian context even these specialist groups do not constitute effective

community. It was found that in I.I.Sc. scientists have mutual faith and respect for each

other at the same time they also feel that their colleagues give them honest and

constructive criticism to their work. However, they emphasised on getting recognition

10 Rossum, W., "The Community Structure of Science", op.cit. p.283.

263

from their colleague abroad. It may be, as they suggested that there are not many

'good' scientists in their specialization - what they call the 'critical mass of scientists'

for effective research culture. In this context professor Haribabu's observation seems

very relevant. He observed: "in the absence of critical size, the small number of

scientists specializing in a particular field tend to work in isolation and are compelled

to actively communicate with their counterpart outside the country". 11

Indian scientists have mutual indifference towards each other's works and

hence, they turn to the west for validation and recognition of their work. Shiva and

Bandhopadhaya12 in their study reported that Indian scientistsdo not pay attention to

other Indian scientists hence they call them "fragile community". Scientists, who have

connection abroad during their Ph.D or post-doctoral works, are able to maintain and

even develop 'research network' through collaborative works and frequent visits.

Scientists, in NPL, are totally dependent on government for funds and even

collaboration with foreign and private institutions are channalised through government

machinery. Hence, their opportunity to interact with wider segment of scientific

community is severely limited in both ways - personal interaction through

participation in seminars and conferences and intellectual interaction (those involved in

strategic research) through publication of their research findings.

Emergence of Scientific Collective Self- Consciousness

It was observed that when some members of an organization are involved in

collaborative research with other organisations, they feel more satisfied as their work is

being recognised by other scientists working in different organizationsand laboratories.

It seems research group, which is formed within organisation, is less cohesive than that

which is formed from drawing members from different organizations. Thus, when

scientists participate in 'mission-oriented research' in which many institutions,

laboratories and universities collaborate-they have strong sense of identification with

their colleagues working in different institutions within the country. They form

scientific community to some extent, as they have mutual orientation, interaction and

11 Haribabu, E., "A Large Community But Few Peers: A Study of the Scientific Community", 1991. op.cit. p. 83.

12 Shiva, V and Bandhopadhaya, "The large and Fragile Community of Scientists in India", 1980, op.cit. p. 586.

264

participation in the common tradition which are reinforced by national institutional

arrangements and their source of financial support. In this mode of collaboration, as

Shrum and Mullins suggested, "a national collective self-consciousness is fused with

the scientific collective-self-consciousness". 13 However, in this mode of collaboration

strong sense of community feeling could be diluted by apprehension of individual

scientists located in different asymmetrical institutions in terms of human & material

resources. As the study of Professor Haribabu reveals that "scientists located in

relatively less resource endowed institutions apprehend that collaborating scientists

from a better endowed institutions would get disproportionately more credit in

collaborative efforts". 14

Thus, formation of research network is constrained by many factors. Modem

mode of communication may facilitate expansion and consolidation of research

network. However, prior personal contact would be essential for formation of new

research network. It seems, instead of larger national community structure, 'actor

network model' as suggested by Michael Calion, described more suitably the emerging

trends of collaborative research. The homogenous communities of scientists is giving

way to heterogeneous communities of scientists, as scientists from different

background are coming together to form research networks.

Normative Dimensions of Science

It is true that the scientific culture fosters rationality and relies heavily on trust.

However, this study reveals that, contrary to co-operation and fraternity, scientists have

personal rivalry, jealousy and mutual suspicions towards each other. In fact, Merton

himself has shown that public history of science is replete with bitter intellectual

controversies, inter-personal rivalries and feelings of discontent and hate for other

contemporary scientists. Social constructivists have also shown that 'every research

laboratory is a miniature arena of individual opportunism and social conflict. However,

despite all these conflicts, and inter-personal rivalries, science has been able to hold

together as a social institution. Of course, unlike other professions or institutions it does

13 Shrum, Wesley, & Mullins, Nicholas. "Network analysis in the study of Science and Technology" in Van Raan, Anthony (ed.) Handbook of Quantitative Studies in Science and Technology, Elsevier Science, Amesterdam, 1988, pp. 107-143.

14 Haribabu, E. "Scientific Knowledge in India: From Public Resources to Intellectual Property", 1999, op.cit. p.228.

265

not have written constitution or formal system of governance. Nonetheless, new comers

to research soon discover that they are not just learning technical skills, but also, as

Campbell stated, 'they are entering into self perpetuating 'tribe' where their behaviour

is governed by informal unspoken rules' .15 However, these rules and norms, according

to Richard Whitley, 16 vary in detail from discipline to discipline, from country to

country and from decade to decade. It was Merton who first suggested that there are

certain general norms in the form of 'prescriptions, proscriptions, preferences and

permissions". They are not codified and are not enforced by specific sanctions. The

norms only come into play in situation where this role is being performed. These norms

are applied on what a scientist published or says as an 'expert' not as what he says

informally in private, about, say her/his colleagues and their works. It has been found

that scientists as such are not aware about the Mertonian set of norms. However when

their views on such issues like: the nature of scientific knowledge, criteria for its

evaluation, their preference for doing a particular kind of research, their opinion about

the utility of their research work, and their desired form of recognition for their works

and different channels used for communication of research findings, and significance of

methodology for their research work etc. are analysed then one can find that varieties of

Mertonian norms and counter norms are operating beneath their collective

consciousness as scientists. In actual behaviour one may find many instances of deviant

behaviour like fraud, plagiarism, biasness in evaluation o~- colleagues' work. These

incidences have serious repercussion on the social institution of science, nonetheless

they are not so widespread and prevalent that they completely corrupt the whole

scientific research practices. Indeed, such episodes • are still regarded as both deviant

and scandalous it is a tribute to the continuous moral authority of 'ethos' that they flout.

Merton's four set of norms-universalism, communism, disinterstedness and

organized scepticism-provide basis for internal functioning of science. However

15 Campbell, D.T. "A Tribe Model of the Social System Vehical Carrying Scientific Knowledge", Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, no.!, 1979, pp. 181-210.

16 w hitley, R., The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Science, Claredon Press, Oxford, 1984.

Recent controversy over the submission of a research paper by a prominent scientist and his co­workers from the National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL), Bangalore, CSIR, for incorporating allegedly a fraudulent data (fractograph) and subsequent disgusting observation made by fellow :;cientists from both the groups, could be seen as moral indignation directed towards contravention of the ethos. For detail on controversy See, "The Integrity of Structure" Current Science, vol. 81, no. II, lOth December, 2001, pp. 1389-1410.

266

science Is not an independent institution immune from external world. Scientists

continuously interact between these two worlds- the internal 'world of science' and the

external life world. In this process of interaction both the worlds are constructed and

reconstructed on the basis of available materials. In the present study application of

these norms have been examined and it was found that Mertonina norms although are

not adequate to explain all the behavioural aspects of scientists yet they draw attention

to social practices and conventions that make science as a distinctive mode of

knowledge production.

Universalism and Internationality of Science

The norm of universalism refers not only to the basis on which scientific results

are valuated but also to the opportunities to produce results. The study shows that there

is general consensus among scientists that there are internationally defined standards

for accepting the validity of a scientific claim. These standards do not vary from

country to country. In the absence of consensus, science cannot become cumulative.

However this consensus is not stagnant; scientists accept that in the light of new

evidences and facts, existing theories are revised or even abandoned. But this process

of revision or rejection of theory and acceptance of a new theory is not always so

smooth, sometimes opposition are made on ideological ground to emerging new

theories. 17 Thomas Kuhn in his historical study of science has clearly shown that

acceptance and rejection of scientific theories are affected by non-scientific factors.

At the behavioural level it has been observed that evaluation of research papers

or research projects for grants are not done only on merit basis, extraneous factors also

affect their decisions. 18 For this reason scientists emphasise on anonymous review of

papers in order to maintain objectivity and impartiality. It is recognized by the

scientists that the norm of universalism is a very demanding regulative principle; it is

17 h Step en Hawking's theory of expansion of universe (and also that there was no singularity at the beginning of the universe) was opposed by several people. Hawking writes: "There was a lot of opposition to our work, partly from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific detenninisrn, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of singularity was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein's theory". (See, Hawking, Stephen, A Brief History of Time from the Big Bang to Black holes, Banton Books, Toronto, 1988, p. 54).

18 Professor Haribabu has also noted that peer review process is influenced by cultural values and attitudes such as respect for age, lack of rigour and professionalism and sub critical size of scientists in frontier areas of research. (Haribabu, E. "A Large Community But Few Peers: A Study of the Scientific Community", 1991, op.cit., p.82).

267

not possible to live up to these norms. Growing specialties have posed big challenges to

what Kuhn termed as a commonly accepted dominant 'paradigm'. The theoretical

models of an advanced science are generally fragmented, uncertain and inconsistent.

Epistemologically the notion that science should be judged by universalistic standards

suggest that the scientific domain can be covered by a single map. That is, it sets the

unification of knowledge as a desirable and attainable goal for science. But the notion

of a unified science gives rise to what Vandana Shiva19 called, reductionism that

implied down grading of other modes of knowledge. However, it could be stated that

growing trends of specialization and gradual realization of significance of traditional

knowledge of local people by scientists might inhibit the process of homogenization

and consequently, the application of norm of universalism. Nonetheless, it has been b\.4,.+

accepted that scientific knowledge is not personal knowledge,~~. 1ts truth status is

determined by communal consensus.

Disinterestedness: Interest in economic benefit versus academic recognition

The norm of disinterestedness primarily functions to protect the production of

scientific knowledge from personal bias and other subjective influences. In modern

time growing economic importance of scientific research has severally undermined the

social norm of disinterestedness. Scientists have argued that~cientific research has ,.._

become very expensive, it requires costly apparatus and huge resources. They feel that

their research will not be supported for the sake of research; hence they have to

generate resources. Compulsion for doing applied research by majority of scientists

shows that they feel the pressure of economic forces. Even the scientists who have

expressed the desire for fundamental research have justified their research on its long­

term practical consequences. In both the organizations, scientists believe that new

opportunities available in global world must be capitalized.

Merger of basic and applied research culture

There is wide consensus that while working on an applied problem there is

ample scope for exploring many fundamental questions. The traditional division of

19 Shiva, Vandana, "Reductionist Science as Epistemological violence" in Nandy, Ashis (ed.), Science Hegemony and Violence: A Requiem for modernity, 1999, op.cit. p. 232-256.

268

basic research and applied research are not very useful. However, scientists argue that

research should not be linked with the production of technology, because, as a scientist

suggested, 'there is a big gap between a scientific concept and its transformation into a

useful technology'. Scientists in I.I.Sc. have emphasized that high quality of

fundamental research in front area of science are very essential not only for providing

leadership in science but also to develop cutting edge technology. It has been observed

that foreign publications are still considered important for the promotion and

recognition in India. For this, scientist even working on applied aspects tried to work

on fundamental aspects that will help them to publish their work abroad. It seems that

scientists are not disinterested whether they are working in applied or fundamental

fields. In the first case, their interest is to get economic benefit and in the second is to

get recognition from their colleagues. It is in the context of their publication pattem;l:hot

the Mertonian norm of communality comesinto practice.

Norm of communality: commercial use-versus-scientific use of knowledge

The norm of communality refers to the belief that the substantive findings of

science are product of a social collaboration and are to be assigned to the community as

common heritage. This norm ensures that the results of research are published promptly

and in full. Thus secrecy is rejected from the scientific matter. Our observation reveals

that majority of scientists justify restriction on their research findings on the ground of

security of the nation, commercial values or, in some cases, when research IS

incomplete. The scientists who are working on some project works do not like to

publish before getting due recognition for their works. It has been observed that

scientists are apprehensive of loosing their priority right. It is important to note that a

systematic mechanism has been developed by scientists to protect their priority rights.

It was found that in some laboratories, research groups keep systematic daily records of

their research activities. In NPL, a special intellectual property right (IPR) division has

been set up to encourage and guide scientists to file for patent before publication of

their reports. It seems that norms of communality and disinterestedness have become

less relevant to the practice of scientific research. It may be true in the sense that there

is shift in value orientation of scientist as a consequence of external economic and

political pressure.

269

However, still majority of scientists believe that scientific knowledge is

communal property for its scientific use but may not be of commercial use. 20 The norm

of communality is more explicitly applicable when knowledge is used for scientific

purpose. It .. was observed that scientists accept that in their research works honest

acknowledgement of predecessors' work is absolutely essential and they denounce any

kind of plagiarism. However, they seem to be content that science has inbuilt

mechanism to detect false claims. For this reason people have trust in scientific

knowledge. An idea may originate in the experience of isolated individuals, but until it

is communicated among the research communities and accepted by them, it can not

become scientific. The norm of communalism ensures to eradicate subjectivity and to

achieve, what Alfred Schutz called, 'inter-subjectivity'. Ziman stated that scientific

knowledge as 'public knowledge' requires that all events reported should be

reproducible' .21 It could be tough criteria as many prominent scientific journals

frequently carry reports of the failure of researchers to replicate the discoveries claimed

by their peers. Therefore, once it becomes clear that the reported phenomenon could

not be replicated under the stated conditions they were excluded from the body of

'established knowledge'. Nonetheless, there are cases where a theory has been accepted

despite existence of some contrary evidences. 22 However, the norm of organized

scepticism, which is methodological in orientation, ensures further enhancement of the

validity and reliability of scientific knowledge.

Organised scepticism: Variations in peer review and publication norms

The norm of organized scepticism provides basis of interaction among

scientists. It requires them to critically response to other works and takes seriously the

criticism of their own works. These critical evaluators act as a filter to remove

unworthy contribution.23 The study reveals that the norm of organized scepticism is

20 Roger G. Krohn has suggested that, although the scientific community states its right in knowledge, it does not state general community right, nor does oblige itself to translate esoteric knowledge into publically useable form. (See, Krohn, G. Roger, "Pattern of the Institutionalization of Research" in Nagi, S.a. & Crown, R.G. (eds). Social context of Research, John Wiley & Sons, New York. 1972).

21 Ziman, John, Real Science, 2000, p. 99.

22 A ccording to Paul Feyerabend, Bohr's atomic model was accepted in spite of precise and unshakable contrary evidence; and Newton's theory oflight as rays and classical electro-dynamics were accepted despite presence of many contrary evidences. (See, Feyerbend Paul, Against method: Outline of Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, New Left Books, London, 1975, pp. 47-61.

23 Zuckerman suggested that organized sceticism is the responsibility of the gatekeepers to the formal

270

operative in the sense that scientists emphasised on publication of their results. They

accept that though they knew the scientific significance of their works, yet the real

significance of the work is revealed when it is published in a particular journal. There

are different grades of journals in each discipline based on their impact factors. Indian

scientists have general feelings that Indian journals are much below to European and

American journals in gradation. That is the reason they prefer to publish in foreign

journals. However, scientists have also feeling that 'peer review' and publication norm '~

are not based on impartial and objective assessment of merit of the work. A scientist

position and his past credibility also play an important role in acceptance of a work.

Robert K. Merton called this phenomenon 'Mathew effect' which is functional for the

growth of science. However, functionality of 'Mathew effect' in Indian context could

be questionable. The senior scientists or so-called 'big-scientists', except few, are not

considered as role models for young scientists; there is general perception that

allocation of awards and recognition in science are not given on impartial assessment of

the merit of their works. The voices of discontents were heard on undue recognition of

colleagues and denial of a due recognition to themselves.

Sceptical appraisal of patent knowledge

Scientists, who are doing applied research and prefer not to publish their

findings also undermine the role of norm of organized scepticism. However, in applied

field a large portion of research is related to routinised and standard work, and hence

will not affect the growth of knowledge. In the context of applied research, which is

done to get patent rights, the norm of organized scepticism will be operational, because,

scientists knew that once they submit their work for 'patent', their work will be

subjected to sceptical appraisal. Hence, they design their research project, from the

beginning to produce results that satisfy these conditions. In fact, patents are good

source of authentic knowledge.

Although scientists may not be able to live up to hundred percent to the norm of

organized scepticism, there is acceptance on the part of scientists that there are moral

constraints on them against temptation for making fabricated discovery or claims.

literature. The editors and referees of reputable scientific journals take this responsibility and evaluate the work on the basis of set standard.

271

Sooner or later it will be discovered and once discovered it caused great

embarrassment. 24

Inadequacy of Mertonian Norms

The Mertonian set of norms provide the ideal pattern of production of scientific

knowledge. But in actual practice, at behavioural level it was found that Mertonian

norms are not adequate to understand the complex systems of science. Mertonian

norms pre-supposes production of scientific knowledge, but it does not tell what that

knowledge is for-except probably the production of more knowledge. That is

generation of knowledge for knowledge sake. It is widely accepted fact that scientific

knowledge is often of immense practical use and society at large foster science

principally for that reason.25 In fact, Merton has indirectly accepted that pragmatic

criteria, as he stated, 'every new technology bears witness' not only to the integrity of

the scientists but also to the objectivity ofhis knowledge and to his freedom from social

influences.26 Moreover, Mertonian norms do not cover all the situations in which

scientists move to develop moral attitude; they do not give adequate guidance in such

matters as the value of scientific knowledge versus other aspects of life.

Thus, it seems that it is becoming difficult for scientists to confirm to the

Mertonian norms in their relation with one another. The pattern of scientific research

and scientific community is undergoing gradual changes and this could be attributed to

external factors like socio-economic and political culture and their bearing on the

formation of world-view of scientists.

Cultural Orientation of Scientists - in socio-economic and political context

The social institution of science does not function in isolation. Socio-economic

and political context shapes the world-view of scientists. This world-view of scientists

constitute their cultural orientation which is reflected in their attitudes towards

24 Evans has shown that wrong or fabricated claims are eventually weeded out by the normal working of the scientific culture (See, Evans, R. "Empirical Truth and Progress in Science", New Scientist, 26 January, 1984 pp. 43-45.

25 Henry Putnam has argued that scientific knowledge is validated pragmatically because scientific validity arises out of scientific practice as a whole rather than a special process of justification. (See, Pntnam, H., "The corroboration of theories", in Boyd, R and Gasper, P and Trout, J.D (eds). The Philosophy ofScience, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1991, pp. 131-137).

26 Merton, Robert. K. Social Theory and Social Structure, 1957. p.560.

272

scientific rationality and religious beliefs· values, understanding of socio-economic and

political issues of the country, their attitudes towards the traditional knowledge and

practices in the context modernj"cience and their conviction as a scientist in a third

world country to make India a self-reliant and developed country.

Reconciliation of religion and science

It has been observed that scientists despite being involved in rational scientific

activity have accommodative attitudes towards religious values and belief. Majority of

scientist (75 percent table 6.1) have described their up bringing as 'mildly religious'

and no scientists considered religious or spiritual values contradictory to scientific

research. However, regarding the efficacy of astrology, palmistry and mantra there is

no unanimity among scientists. One fourth of our total sample have clearly rejected

these beliefs as these phenomena do not fulfil the basic criteria of scientific truth.

Nonetheless, majority of scientists have preferred not to make any conclusive

judgement. These scientists accept the limitation of science and variation in human

capabilities to perceive infinite reality. It is important to note that Mertonian norm of

organized scepticism which requires on the part of scientists not to keep cleavage

between profane and sacred domain for the purpose of scientific inquiry seems to be

less applicable. However, it should be kept in mind that Mertonian norms are related to

collective virtue of scientists and are not confined to individual life. Moreover, these

norms come into practice where scientific role is performed, they do not cover all

aspects of an individual life. Scientific rationality is confined only to laboratory life. It

seems scientists have been able to maintain their traditional views at home while doing

scientific research in the laboratories. However, when they decide not to confront a

phenomenon, which can not be scientifically explained, their decisions are based not on

philosophical ground, but on sociological ground. It is true that mysteries could not be

studied in broad framework of science. But it does not mean that such matters should

not be studied at all. 27

27 Restivo suggested that in a pluralistic society, study of mysteries is the role of 'alternative sciences' in various forms. This is not easily differentiated from orthodox science, except by being produced by alternative institutions. Hence, a particular item of knowledge can not be dismissed as pseudo­science, simply because of its subject matter, or on the basis of internal criteria of coherence, plausibility etc; it may contain a germ of truth. (See, Restivo, S., Science Society and Value: Towards a Sociology of Objectivity, Lihigh University Press, Bethlehan, 1997).

273

Socia Economic & Political Understanding

Scientists are well aware of the socio-economic and political situation of the

country. Like free citizens they discuss current issues among their close circles.

However, on specific issues like Jammu & Kashmir or on economic reforms many

scientists do not have very in-depth historical understanding. Nonetheless, on these

issues they emphasized on protection of national interests and interests of the people.

For many other problems like corruption, criminalization of politics and communalism

they attribute to the failure of our social, political and administrative institutions. They

accept that even institution of science is not fully free from those evils. They suggested ,,

for good governance and de-glamorization of bureaucratic post, and accountability and

transparency in all dealings and works. In this process although a small group of

scientists are not very interested to play active role in politics, majority of scientists

justify their greater role in national affairs. However, there is apprehension among

scientists that direct association of scientists with politics and government meddling

directly in research institutions may diminish the credibility of science as a neutral

mediating force to resolve a controversy. Scientists in both the organizations

emphasized that research institutions should not be politcised. They accept economic

and political support to sustain a particular kind of research programme however,

strongly desire, what Merton called, internal autonomy for saving the credibility of

scientific knowledge.

Cultural Identity Through Resurrection of Indigenous Knowledge

For the Indian scientists, west is still the role model for their research work.

Nonetheless there seems to be emergence of consciousness among scientists for

assertion of their self-identity as Indians who are rooted in well-developed scientific

cultural tradition and also capable of doing good scientific reserach. There is wide

consensus among scientists on relevance of traditional knowledge. The present study

reveals that majority of scientists in both the organizations believe that post colonial

legacy of west-driven scientific research, that is followed in India, has suppressed the

indigenous knowledge and skills. Traditional knowledge system of people has

frequently been portrayed as closed, pragmatic, utilitarian, value-loaded, indexical

context dependent and so on, implying that they can not have the same authority and

credibility as science because their localness restrict themselves to the social and

274

(•

cultural circumstances of their production. 'This kind of cultural dichotomies is not

tenable in the light of modem studies of science as social action. It was noticed that

scientists in both the organizations recognise the importance of traditional knowledge

based on experience and observation of local people regarding their environment,

health and agricultural practices. They emphasised on exploring and re-interpreting the

indigenous knowledge and practices and incorporating them into modem scientific

framework. In fact, it has been accepted that scientific culture is deeply

heterogeneous.28 Thus, totalizing discourse of science has been challenged by

emerging significance of traditional and even spiritual knowledge. This phenomenon

could be termed as, what Visvanathan29 called, 'the insurrection of little knowledge' or,

in the words of Foucault,30 'an insurrection of subjugated knowledge'. However, this (•

kind of excessive emphasis on localness of knowledge should be cautioned, because

excessive empirical relativism of knowledge and its linkages with politics may lead to

the proliferation of dogmatic natioonalism.31

Science as an Instrument for Nation Building

In fact, scientific research reflects the assumption and world-view of those who

participate in its creation - the worldview of politicians and industrialists (market

forces). It has been found that scientists in both the organizations have recognized the

necessity of indigenous development of science and technology for making the country

self-reliant. There is emphasis on applied research to fulfill the growing needs of the

people. Moreover, the scientific achievements are considered as national achievements.

28 Indian scholars like, Shiv Visvanathan & Ashish Nandy have questioned the mono logic nature of western science and have emphasized recognition of local traditional knowledge of people. (See, Nandy, Ashish and Visvanathan Shiv, "Modem medicine and its non-modem critics" in Visvanathan, Shiv, A Carnival for Science Essay on Science, Technology and Development, Oxford University Pres~Delhi, 1997, pp.94-145).

29 Visvanathan Shiv, "On the Annals of the laboratory state'' in Nandy, Ashish (ed). Science, Hegemony and Violence, op.cit. 1999. p.258.

3° Foucault, Michel, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other writings. 1972-77 (Translated by Gordan, C) Pantheon, New York, 1980, p. 71.

31 Zaheer Baber has observed that in the current upsurge of 'Hindutva' and their search for vedic science will make deeper impact on struggle over whether the nation will continue to be multi­religious and diverse or will succumb to the homegenzing Hindutva project of the current Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) regime (See, Baber, Zaheer, "Colonizing nature, Scientific knowledge, colonial power and the incorporation of India into the modem system" British Journal of Sociology, vol. 52, no. I March 2001, pp. 37-58.

275

In the contemporary world technological transfer has become important dimension in

international relations. Although scientists argue for international collaboration in

scientific research, yet they emphasized that indigenous base should be strengthened so

that any kind of political or economic sanction may not hurt India unilaterally.

Political elites of India have also shared the ambitions and aspirations of the

scientists which are reflected in the plans and policies formulated in the last five

decades of successive planning. Instrumental role of science was recognized for

making country self-reliant. However, scientists do not define self- reliance in narrow

terms rather their conception about self- reliance is to acquire capability to generate a

technology in case it is denied to the country. In the last five decades a big

infrastructure for science and technology has been created in the country. The

Government has been the main supporting agency for research and development. In the

recent decade, as a consequence of globalization and economic liberalisation, the

industry and market culture and its various regimes and actors now have started playing

major role in the research and development in civilian sectors. The pressure of

economic forces is making scientists conscious to the urgency of getting patent right for

their works. They also emphaised the need to protect indigenous knowledge and

practices from their exploitation by foreign companies.

Emergence of New Culture ofScientific Research

Thus, the analysis indicates that a new culture of scientific research is coming

up and many scholars have observed this trend. Professor Haribabu32 has termed it,

'shift in cognitive value from 'knowing for its own sake' to 'knowing with an eye on

patent'; V.V. Krishna33 has described it 'replacement of 'science as public good' by

'science as market good'; Ziman34 has called it transition from 'academic science to

post-academic science'; Gibbons35 and his associates have termed it as a 'new mode of

knowledge production'.

32 Haribabu, E. "Scientific Knowledge in India: From Public Resources to Intellectual Property", 1999, op. cit. p. 227.

33 Krishna V.V. "Policy Culture Changing Policy Culture, Phases and Trends in Science and Technology in India" Science and Public Policy, Vol .28 no. 3 June, 200 I. pp.l79-194. p.J87

34 Ziman, J. Real Science, 2000 op.cit. p. 60. 35 Gibbon, M ...... et al., The New Production of Knowledge; The Dynamics of Science and Research in

Contemporary Societies, op.cit., 1994.

276

The externalist scholars have attributed, economic, political and social pressure

exerted on scientific community for this kind of change. However, internal factors are

also important. The growth of 'big science' and large-scale technological input has

moved research towards, what Ziman called, 'collectivization of science'.36 In fact,

teamwork, networking and other modes of collaboration between research specialties

have become essential, because science has progressed to a level where its outstanding

problems can not be solved by individual working individually. Trans-disciplinary

approaches have emerged not only in applied aspects but also in fundamental basic

research making studies inter-disciplinary.37 The new trend in knowledge production,

that could be called pragmatic mode of knowledge production, is directly connected to

society and has to share its larger values and concerns of the society, because complete

ethical independence and purely academic scientific knowledge may not get social

legitimacy.

However, methodological, conceptual changes in science and emergence of new

discipline and technique could not be explained in terms of external forces. Science is

also driven by forces arising deep within it. Mertonian norms may not exert long range

force on scientists, yet they have to play major role in generating and shaping a whole

range of scientific practices in order to produce certified knowledge. As a source of

well - established disinterested knowledge, science plays a unique role in settling

factual dispute. This is not because it embodies 'the truth'; it is because it has a well­

deserved reputation for impartiality and objectivity. Hence, in order to ensure

confidence in the cognitive and social objectivity of science, Mertonian norms still

have to play a role in production of scientific knowledge. Of course, 'absolute realism'

or 'scientism' can not be an option. There is an imperative need for scientific pluralism,

as the practice of science has become trans-disciplinary, heterogeneous, multi -

centered, accountable and reflexive. Moreover, rejection of the view of science as

'public good' in favour of 'science as market good' will lead to monopolization of

'knowledge capital' and may be used as another instrument of hegemonic dominance.

36 Ziman, Joh, An introduction to Science Studies, 1984, op.cit. p. 138. 37 Prof. Haribabu has characterized this change with growing emphasis on strategic research, increasing

role of corporate sectors in R&D and emphasis on control over knowledge and its dissemination (See, Haribabu, E. "Scientific Knowledge in India: From Public Resources to Intellectual Property", 1999, op. cit. p.231)

277

It is pertinent to point out that arguments and analysis made in this thesis are not

conclusive. Our study shows the general dynamics of science in society and makes a

general contribution in the field of sociology of science. There is further scope for

research and investigation in this area.

Further Study:

The scope of this study has been very broad, as we have attempted to provide an

integrated framework for normative dimensions of science, community life of scientists

and their cultural orientation. Hence, it has not been possible to pursue all the

potentially fruitful questions that have arisen during the production of this thesis.

Further study could be conducted in the following areas:

1. It would be sociologically important to study how 'mission - oriented study' or

Trans-collaborative studies will affect the community consciousness of scientists

and their national-cultural identity consciousness. Would they reinforce each other?

Or, national scientific community consciousness will be diluted by formation of

trans-national research network.

2. A more in-depth study could be made on how the entry of engineering and medical

graduates into the profession of research and development will affect the mode of

knowledge production.

3. Typology of scientists and its implication for normative structure of science

requires more refinement through further study of subtleties and variations m

orientation to works, selection of goals, their meanings and satisfaction etc.

4. A comparative study of private sector research laboratory and government research

laboratory may provide more insight into the normative dimensions of science and

cultural orientation of scientists. The issues raised by Habermas in terms of

"purposive rationality" will be relevant in this area.

5. A more detailed study on impact of Information Technology on Structure of

scientific community and practice of scientific research would be more insightful.

278